Perhaps this issue should've been a "gripe/idea" instead of a public post but I'm interested to know if there are others who think like I do...

From what I've gathered, after ATS policy regarding new members was changed late last year, new members registered after that date and who didn't need to fill out the new user information post, got "member" with lower case m as their default tag, whereas members who had registered before that date have "Member" with a capital M as their default tag.

Now, I didn't give that much thought at first and didn't even care what the tag said, but after all the Serpo brouhaha my outlook changed. After seeing so many trolls, sock puppets, rabble rousers etc. springing up between the floorboards due to that massive event I now suspect all and everyone to be somewhat suspect if their tag reads "member" instead of "Member" (or Writer, Fighter, Scholar etc.)

I'm not quite sure if there is or was a need to differentiate between regular users, since we're not even two sides of the same coin, but quite the same, the only difference being the date when we were originally minted.

I've noticed that some new posters have jumped in with quality posts and thus I feel that I treat them unfairly if they are new, even though I'm not that old user myself with only 87 posts under my belt.

It's perhaps unnecessary to think and implement a some kind of user verification system where the tag would change if certain criteria would be met, but perhaps a system where your tag would change from Hangaround to Probationary to Member if the member in question would post and not get warns during their first steps in the ATS community.

The current limit for chat and podcasting is 200 IIRC, so perhaps that could be the transition from Probationary to Member, and maybe 50 posts from Hangaround to Probationary? Staff applause etc. could modify that too - ie. if the new member in question is a researcher with lots of knowledge and skill, they could make the mark just by showing the quality of their posts, not just the quantity like the unwashed masses, myself included


So, whaddaya think? I don't think that a system like that would be too difficult to implement, but I'm by no means suggesting that it should happen overnight (if at all).

Please, share your thoughts.

You don't need to fill out the form any more? Wow... lowered expectations .

Anyway, that's basically what the point system is for, besides buying stuff. It's mostly for status, along with how it changes colours shows how many good things you submit that are good enough to be applauded.

I don't know if I like the different title ranking things. It's kind of cliché, especially here on ATS. What would we use for the ranks?

"Newbie"
"Member"
"Tinfoil Captain"
"Hermit"
"Unibomber"
"Reptilian"



I kind of wish there was an actual thing in the profile that lists how many applauses and WATS votes you have though. It's hard to tell with just subtle grey-to-red color changes.

The Member-member thing was sort of a subtle thing to notice. I went and checked, and it does seem to be true. Hooray for "Big M's" . Thanks for noticing, because I wouldn't have.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Yarcofin]

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I don't know if I like the different title ranking things. It's kind of cliché, especially here on ATS. What would we use for the ranks?

Well, mostly it would help people to give newbies a bit of slack if they(/we) mess things up instead of just jumping in for the kill. Perhaps the title tag could also change over time, so those who read but don't post all that often would get a chance to get recognized as an "old hand".

Mostly my point was that it's unnecessary to differentiate between Members and members, and because I am what I am, I couldn't resist on taking it further if we do need to make the distinction...

Other forums like Gamespot actually have a "Posts Read" count, not just "Posts". That could be interesting too, because I know a lot of people just read and don't reply to posts. But then again, I don't know how it differentiates between just going to a page, and actually "reading" it either.

My thoughts: What would be the purpose of differentiating between new users and 'regular' users? What would you do with that information?

I don't even look at any of the indicators, like M vs m, points, the bar, the color, etc. I judge the post on its own merit. A brand new person could post excellent ideas, views and insights on their first post. And it's also quite possible that a long-time member, with colors and points, can post totally ignorance-embracing nonsense.

I don't like the whole 'status watch' idea.

If I see a post that I have really negative judgment about, then I look at the name and possibly the date they joined. If it's really offensive to me, I might look at their profile and check their other posts (I'm nosy). But otherwise, I try to keep an open mind.

Originally posted by Count
Well, mostly it would help people to give newbies a bit of slack if they(/we) mess things up instead of just jumping in for the kill.

I don't see the need to have a tiered membership, such as newbie, member, reptilian, etc. Everyone can tell how long someone has been here by simply looking at the date registerd in the avvy. If you really want to know how many posts a member has, you have only to click on the profile.
Slack is cut to newer members. We try to make sure tne new members are aware of the rules. Members should do the same and try to make new members feel welcome.

Membership Has Its Privileges

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Slack is cut to newer members. We try to make sure tne new members are aware of the rules. Members should do the same and try to make new members feel welcome.

Amen!

The last thing ATS needs is to become stodgy, parochial and insular. And let's make no mistake: that's always a danger for any board, and older members are most susceptible to it.

All I really need to know about members can be found in the content of their posts.

The rest is fun, and I like playing around with the miniprofile and all the killer perks that come with being an ATS member, but the meat and potatoes of ATS is what members post.

Anything which encourages new members to share their opinions is good, while anything which discourages them is bad.

At least, that's my opinion, and I encourage you to share yours.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

I don't see the need to have a tiered membership, such as newbie, member, reptilian, etc. Everyone can tell how long someone has been here by simply looking at the date registerd in the avvy.

Fine with me

But why the members registered under the "new rule" are being differentiated from the old style members and was there a perceived need to do that?

If it ever gets off the ground the mentor program will be a great help to new members. I dont think that a user verification system would be that useful after all it is possible that new members could post what is considered to be high quality contend and still get banned for any number of reasons.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by xpert11]

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
If you really want to know how many posts a member has, you have only to click on the profile.

You don't even have to do that. Just put your cursor on the post bar and the number of posts pops up. If that doesn't work, just left click and then put your cursor over the post and that usually does it.

As for membership tenure, I don't see it as much of an issue. We all notice the newbie posts that bring up the topics that have been thrashed to death, but I've seen new members who post very good, detailed information right off.

About the only time I even care about how long a person has been on board is when something in the post makes me wonder. Sometimes I'm surprised to see a recent registration date and sometimes I'm equally surprised to see a distant date, especially when members "rise from the dead," so to speak.


[edit on 2006/2/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

You don't even have to do that. Just put your cursor on the post bar and the number of posts pops up. If that doesn't work, just left click and then put your cursor over the post and that usually does it.

Maybe not with Firefox, because it's not working for me. Unless it's because of some funky extension I have.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by curme]

It doesn't work with Firefox.

Now my understanding to the Member vs. member was after a period of time being on the boards it changes to the Member.

Has this changed or was it never like that?

I have noticed the member status for quite awhile, so this is permanant for newly registered members?

Seems pretty strange to me. Members registering at the same time were given member status, while others granted Member.

Whats the issue there?

Why are some members denied membership. Is there a threat issued in their request or what?

Is their tight restrictions to gain access or what?

I don't think it means anything. Somewhere along the way someone changed Member to member in the code and now that it has been brought up, someone changed it back.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't think it means anything. Somewhere along the way someone changed Member to member in the code and now that it has been brought up, someone changed it back.

Now there's proof that a pebble dropped to a pond does cause a ripple.

These aren't the "members" you're looking for...

actually i liked the Noobie idea....haha